Jump to content

User talk:JzG/Archive 40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42→Archive 45

Talk:Cold fusion

Hey, I was just about to semiprotect Talk:Cold fusion when you beat me to it. Great minds etc. Anyhow, I was wondering if you'd mind if I backed the protection down to 1-2 weeks, rather than 6 months. Since it's a talk page, it might make sense to go in small increments. I'll take responsibility for re-semiprotecting the page if the usual suspects start disrupting it again after the semiprotection expires. Anyhow, just wanted to check with you. MastCell Talk 21:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Not especially, but be aware that Jed will be right back as soon as it wears off, from past experience. I'm more than happy to share the load here. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I have no illusions about the degree of persistence here. On the other hand, it'd be nice to balance that with allowing (non-abusive) IPs to edit the talk page. Maybe I'm leaning too far in that direction. Anyhow, I did go ahead and shorten it - I'll keep an eye out for recurrences, and please let me know if I can be of assistance down the line. MastCell Talk 00:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Guy, I think that you shouldn't reply to any message on Talk:Cold fusion about Jed's ban. You are just giving an excuse to Abd to keep posting long posts :) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Abd's behaviour baffles me. I have never thought of Abd as anything other than a decent, productive editor - one of the many who often do good by fixing up the junk that the less good leave behind, on occasion - but this apparent denial of Pcarbonn's POV-pushing and Rothwell's status as a disruptive POV-pushing WP:SPA is absolutely baffling to me. I have a strong impression that there is some back-story that I am missing. It is hard to understand what room there is for doubt here - everything that applies to Pcarbonn in respect of WP:SOAP, WP:BATTLE, WP:UNDUE and so on applies doubly to Rothwell, in fact if anything it is Pcarbonn who is acting for Rothwell not the other way around. The less of these kooks' input we have the more chance there is that the article will eventually claw its way back out of the gutter through normal editorial process, which is all I want. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, Guy, you might try paying attention to what I've written here on your Talk page! "POV-pushing" of certain kinds isn't contrary to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I'm not convinced that PCarbonn was actually a POV-pusher; his New Energy Times article seems to have been read with a rather jaundiced eye. But he certainly has a different POV from you! And from ScienceApologist. Researching the history of the article, I was appalled. Look, you had at least some kind of reasonable excuse with Rothwell, his Talk page edits, to someone who wasn't paying attention to the purpose of linkspam policy and to what Rothwell was actually doing, looked like linkspam, even though, if you read the guidelines, they hardly resemble linkspam at all. They aren't widespread, and they aren't links, just his title. But with New Energy Times, what was your excuse? Could it be that you consider New Energy Times a "fringe" "polemic" site? And how do you judge that? I've now had occasion to speak with Krivit. He's a *journalist* who has come to specialize in the field. He follows journalistic ethics and standards. Yet, the on-line magazine has editorials that express opinions, but that's clearly different from the extensive reporting that's done there. What was the reason for blacklisting NET? Could it be that you believed it wasn't a usable source? But this is an editorial decision, not an administrative one. You got confused in your roles. You aren't the first and I'm sure you won't be the last.
Yes, I find this sad, because, in fact, I've seen your good work as well, I've seen you as helpful. On the other hand, Rothwell is an abrasive personality, but he's not a "kook." I know the field of cold fusion, I avidly read everything I could about it back in 1989-1990. I had largely chalked it all up to an unfortunate mistake, experimental error. It is still possible that this is the case, but it's increasingly unlikely if you read the latest research, which I hadn't until I accidentally noticed a reference to the blacklist on Jehochman Talk. It's not like polywater and other major goofs. Quite simply, it turned out to be quite difficult to reproduce, but "quite difficult" doesn't mean that Fleischmann was wrong, it meant that finding verification was going to take a lot more time than anyone expected, and the massive -- and premature -- rejection that you know and I know took place made it all the more difficult. Rothwell knows the field possibly as well as anyone in the field, not as a scientist himself, but as a writer and editor. What he writes about the state of research on cold fusion checks out. He's arrogant and irritating, all the more so because he's usually right when he writes about what he knows about. Not necessarily what he doesn't know about, such as Wikipedia process. As a COI editor, he is expected to have a POV and to "push it," but only in Talk, not in articles. I think you got a tad confused about that. Pcarbonn edited articles. Jed stopped doing that quite a while ago. As to copyright violation, you asserted your own opinion on this, over and over, in the face of expert opinion. Too much belief in yourself, Guy, not enough trust in the community.
This ready dismissal of "POV pushers" is a serious problem; the fact is that few are able to truly avoid POV pushing while actually working to improve the project. I see your edits to Cold fusion as POV pushing; just a different POV. To me, no single individual determines NPOV; NPOV is actually best measured by consensus; when good-faith, reasonable editors with all POVs agree on text, it is almost certainly NPOV. We need editors or advisors (i.e., experts in the field like Rothwell or, on the other side, Shanahan, for example) with strong POVs in order to detect bias. And we prevent these POVs from taking over by insisting on consensus process, with all the policies governing editorial behavior; and a crucial part of this is that administrators do not determine content using their tools, with few exceptions. Rather, they police editors to make sure that behavioral guidelines are followed. And, in this, it's crucial that administrators not use their tools when involved, and your edits show, clearly, that you were involved. Please read what response you got to the RfAr, and not just the casual, what's the big deal just ban them response that you got at first. ArbComm is quite different from an administrative noticeboard; it's not the first comments that count, but the sober, cautiously deliberated result, and ArbComm, quite properly, declined to start up that process because it is very time-consuming. Dispute resolution should start right here. If I have a dispute with you, we should attempt to work it out. If we can't agree, then we get help, one step at a time. Let's do it, Guy. If you don't agree with what I've been saying, don't just blow it off. Suggest a mediator, I'm willing to try informally with anyone. If you suggest someone who will just knee-jerk agree with you, well, you'll be wasting your time, my time, and the mediator's time. Once upon a time, I'd have suggested Carcharoth, but as an arbitrator, that could be tricky. Any ideas? --Abd (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. As it would appear that you haven't yet been informed, a thread on this topic has been opened at AN/I in which you were raised. - Bilby (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, JzG was mentioned, but I didn't consider his removal of Talk material, in the specific example involved, to be a problem. I simply reverted it. What happened next would be more of a problem, but not JzG's problem, for sure.... I haven't seen what's been said at AN/I yet. --Abd (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? Why? Why?

Why did you delete 'PINGAS'? Was a redirect that offensive for you to delete it? It was just a redirect to Doctor Eggman in other media#Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog, where the 'PINGAS' phrase comes from. Is that 'pure vandalism'? Ambil (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

    • You like to use that metaphor, but the janitor at the building where I work doesn't go digging through drawers, shelves, and filing cabinets throwing out papers that, in their opinion, should be trashed; they merely empty the trash that others have decided to throw out. They also lack the power to fire or suspend other workers from their jobs, unlike admins here who can administer blocks and bans. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
To be fair, the people getting blocked and banned ("thrown out") are usually the workplace equivalent of people wandering in off the street. You know the type - proselytizers, graffiti artists, dodgy marketers putting up posters, and escapees from the local asylum. They should be blocked at the door by security guards, but since there aren't any, they occassionally make it up to the offices where good folks are trying to work. Fortunately our buffed janitor is around to unceremoniously throw them out and tear down their posters. Unfortunately, this leads to some wailing, gnashing of teeth and rocking of windows by those unceremoniously attended to, and complaints from that prissy lady in accounts that no one likes, that all the noise is annoying her, and gosh darn it, if he just treated folks proper like Jesus taught, then none of this trouble would exist.
I'm all out of analogies. How bout you? Phil153 (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
A more apt analogy here might be that he empties the trash even though some people have occasionally been known to throw out something by accident. I assumed good faith of the speedy tagger, who appeared to know more about the subject than I do. When CAT:CSD fills up, along come the janitors and empty it. And sometimes people bitch and moan. But Dan is just being a gadfly as usual. He loves to assume bad faith and chastise me for doing what anybody else would have done. Here's the peerless prose which Dan is objecting to us nuking:

Pingas means penis pretty much however it is spelled and prounounces PINGAS because in Adventures of sonic the hedgehog the villan Dr.Robotnick says SnooPING AS usual i see and awsome people on youtube cut out PING and AS to make PINGAS

— PINGAS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and why it was nuked
Anybody think that's worth the time already spent on it? No? Guy (Help!) 20:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

John Bambenek DRV

When I saw yesterday that JB was once more at DRV, I came to your talk page to entreat you not to close it speedily or, at the very least, not to partake of the (relatively light-hearted, I admit) sarcasm with which you have closed at least two previous DRVs, but I concluded that you would refrain from such dickishness and so offered no note; I was distressed, then, to see that you had to go down that road again. Your comment was, as ever, gratuitous, and I continue to be surprised at your willingness to deride a living person (or to speculate about the nominator's being that person), your being so often situated on the hardline extreme of BLP construction. Even if it is reasonable, AGF's not being a suicide pact, for us to assume that a user whose first edits are to DRV is a single-purpose editor who has some interest in JB's having an article, we needn't to be obnoxious in dismissing that user, particularly where he/she, whatever his/her motives, is willing to make an effort to offer us a draft that means to comply with our guidelines (we don't, after all, refuse an article simply because we do not like its creator or because we think him/her to be interested only in self-aggrandizement; we not infrequently keep articles that began as self-promoting biographies where there exist sufficient sources toward notability). Your brusque style is prized by many in the community, to be sure, but your desire to be clueful and sensible needn't to lead you to be sarcastic; at the very least I hope you will hold back the unnecessary "Bye, John"-type comment when next the issue arrives at DRV. Joe 20:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  • The guy is playing a game. We know who it is, he knows we know. The sockpuppet is tagged, as many of his sockpuppets are. If he cared, I'm sure he would write to OTRS, but actually he makes it so blindingly obvious that I'm absolutely sure he is sharing the joke. And I am quite serious about that. "Bye, John" is absolutely not an attack or anything else, it's a friendly wave to a long-standing "adversary" whose efforts these days lack any evidence of the earlier malice. It's also a low-key reminder that we have not forgotten. If you want to look for problems, look at the banned users list, where he is listed by full name. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

you need to warn an editor

Hello, you put a resolved tag on the request to put an user under WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE discretionary sanctions at Mucoid plaque [1]. Howeverm you didn't add anything to User_talk:Heelop. You should leave him the Template:Pseudoscience enforcement standard message (the arbcom case requires that such a warning is given) and tell him what sanction you are placing (topic ban, whatever). --Enric Naval (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick explanation

You recently endorsed an AFD close for Assyrian Christian Stele. I'm obviously not understanding something, so hopefully you can help. Why does a lack of sources not matter in this case? Someone basically made a name for an object that no published source has ever used, and yet that doesn't seem to matter. Why does WP:RS and WP:OR not apply (or why do some people just seem to not care about it)? I'm not trying to be a dick with this, I honestly don't understand how something that is without question an OR violation gets continually overlooked and/or approved by people. Otebig (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Good question. The reason was that the AfD debate was correctly (IMO) interpreted by the closer. I share your concern about the lack of sources, but redirects are cheap so the only bar they usually need to pass is being a likely search term and not being obviously crass, offensive or demeaning to the subject. I hope this is reasonably consistent with policy. After a few weeks, when the dust has settled, the redirect can be considered in isolation, but what the AfD delivered was not to have the article at Assyrian_Christian_Stele which I think is correct and addressed the concerns at nomination, at least to a first approximation. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


Trash

Thanks for trying to keep WP from being a venue for hate speech.--Elvey (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

ADM

He's now pledged to be a good boy. I put the unblock on hold for you to evaluate this. Daniel Case (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  • He emailed me, the essence of his comment was that he would be a much nicer mission poster if unblocked. You can colour me unconvinced, but I am happy to leave it to the judgement of others. I diagnose a dangerous mix of youth and unfortunate views. Guy (Help!) 19:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:SmashTheState

Hey, Guy. I (and it appears a few other folks) am a little unsure about your block of this guy. While his editorial slant is decidedly strong towards the political views he puts forward, I'm not certain that he's done anything that could be considered blockworthy at this point. If being outspoken and surly about one's views was blockable, we'd have about a dozen editors unblocked, I think. Looking at his edits, there's no real edit-warring or heavy POV-pushing in articles that I can see, though I may just be missing it. Could you take another look and perhaps reconsider? (Not to mention that it'd forestall the inevitable drama somewhat.) Thanks! Tony Fox (arf!) 22:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. I know SmashTheState in real life. He is a well intentioned but strong speaking fellow. And I know that he is laughing long and hard that someone would find his username offensive. The guy lives and breathes political anarchism in the extreme. That his quest to free the minds of others from the tyranny of the state is being seen as offensive would make him either laugh, or bemoan the way you've all been brainwashed. (Not that I agree with his political stance, finding the whole anarchy point of view a little adolescent.) Anyway, please reconsider your block, which seems more than a little goofy. Or hell, block me too. For giggles. --Nik (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not that he's outspoken and surly (I am both), the problem is that his content edits are polemical, and his interactions with others appear to be those of the picket line. His eighth edit was to add Category:Wikipedia culture to Kangaroo court, [2], and that seems to be representative of his behaviour consistently from there on; and his content edits are of similarly confrontational nature, for example, Rand was a psychopath, scarcely calculated to ease tensions on a particularly contentious article. Do we really need rock-hurling activists? Hence no expiry: I don't think a short period will fix the issue. I consider adding polemic to articles to be a serious problem, much more so than polemic directed against users. I think I explained this in the block message. But, Nik, iof you can have a word with him and get him to make some sort of comment indicating that he recognises that Wikipedia is not Usenet, then I am sure it will be no problem. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
So he called Ayn Rand a psychopath. Tactless, yes. But he did provide a reference. I'll be the first to admit that SmashTheState does not play well with others. While Wikipedia might not be Usenet, I think if we lock out contentious writers, this place becomes dull. (Sorry, duller. If I read one more article about an irrelevant third string cartoon character, I will scream.) Yes, the obnoxious people stir up a hornet's nest and create more work for admins. But the alternative is a barren wasteland where we all agree. Your argument for blocking him strikes me as far too broad -- his username is "problematic"? Come on. That's quite a stretch -- and one loaded with political bias. (And I say that neither wanting the state smashed or unsmashed.) Don't ask me to talk SmashTheState off the ledge. That won't work. But if you folks doused him in honey instead of spraying him with repellent, you'd find he'd make a good ally. So long as you're willing to allow the occasional psychopathic Ayn Rand statement. (She was, at the very least, pretty humourless.) --Nik (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you also please take into account the fact that he has no previous blocks, starting off at indef is a bit steep under the circumstances. Couldn't we start the bidding a little lower?--Misarxist (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I've heard grumblings, Guy, that your defense of Ayn Rand is politically motivated, in that the founder of Wikipedia is a big Ayn Rand supporter. The suggestion is that this block is an effort on your part to gain some status. I don't know if I buy it, but thought I'd put the question to you. Care to comment? --Nik (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The word to most accurately describe those grumblings is: bullshit. I know nothing of Rand, have never read any of his her books, and have never, to my knowledge, edited any article even peripherally connected to Rand, even if I knew what would constitute a connection. I know only one important thing about Ayn Rand: the article is a magnet for POV-pushers. That is the beginning and end of my knowledge and interest in that subject. I hope this is suitably unambiguous, and anyone who wants to assert otherwise will need some pretty compelling evidence - compelling enough to convince me that there is some connection to my minor off-wiki biases of which I was not aware. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Guy, you know I respect the hell out of you. You are one of the people who I believe has the best interests of WP at heart. But once in a while you get a little too zealous in protecting those interests, and I think this is one of them. I don't believe the userpage is a "personal attack"--that would require it to be discussing a person, and it's not--it's discussing a website and the perceived mindset behind it. And as much as you may disagree with his belief system, it's only on Rand articles that I see real problems. I'm dropping a note of caution on his page, but based on AN/I consensus, I've unblocked this user. I've left a note on AN/I as well, letting everyone know that anyone who disagrees may reverse my decision with no hard feelings from me; this includes you, and I won't shout "wheel war ZOMG" if you do.GJC 15:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
You know, I just dropped by because I wondered how Guy was doing these days, but I can't help but stick my beak in. Maybe I had the wrong idea, but I thought Wikipedia was here to make an encyclopedia through community effort. I'm fascinated by the alternate theory, that Wikipedia is mainly an entertainment site for people without enough drama in their lives. My proposal: we use Wikipedia for the former, and the rest of the Internet for the latter. Fair deal? William Pietri (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, William, long time no see! Please do drop me an email and let me know how things are with you. I beg forgiveness for not keeping up with old friends - too busy with the chair and whip :-) Guy (Help!) 21:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Just a late follow-up to your note that you have not read anything written by Ayn Rand. Well I have: Anthem, back in the sixth grade. To repeat the punchline from the joke, you haven't missed a goddamn thing. ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for TurnKey Linux

An editor has asked for a deletion review of TurnKey Linux. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Just proposing to do the AfD on this, without undeleting it, to keep with policy and process etc. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Pesky sock puppet

Could you have a look at 212.200.240.232 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). It appears to be somebody logging out while stirring the pot in various policy discussions. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 15:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree, I left a message, if it continues then I suggest we take it to ANI as a block request based on the Privatemusings arbitration finding. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • We figured out who it was, and I can't be arsed to dig through their whole history. Perhaps we should just let them be. They are not banned or blocked. Apparently they abandoned their login and just want to edit as an IP. Perhaps we should say that IP's can't edit policy...That would be nice, but probably not supported by the masses. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 18:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Scott Sonnon restart

I was checking out the history and noticed you wrote "start again from stub" when you recreated the article. I used to add articles to a list when I'd create them, but I am not always notified when people try to delete them (people are impolite) so I totally missed when it got deleted. Since you wrote 'again' I presume that there was a 'deleted' message, like it would say who deleted the article, along with a 'vote for deletion' or something like that. I know it's an odd thing to ask since this was over a year ago you made the stub, but do you remember anything like the reason it happened? I am trying to find out, because since the article is obviously quite vibrant now, I am wondering what it was I originally wrote (I totally forget, along with when it was made) since it is not in the history. Tyciol (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(drive-by comment) there was an Article for Deletion (AfD) discussion here, where the commenters talked about the article needing cleanup, etc. As a personal assesment, it appears that the article was so bad that JzG simply restarted it from a stub, and he didn't simply delete it because the AfD had said that he was notable even if the article was bad. Notice that, in principle, any article can be stubbed by an admin if it's very bad, and that this was an article on a living person, which falls under the Biographies of Living Persons policy WP:BLP). That policy actually recommends stubbing or deleting badly written articles on living persons, see WP:BLPSTYLE, and any info with bad sources can be removed at sight without infringing the three reverts rule, see WP:GRAPEVINE.
JzG might give you the details on what exactly was wrong with the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I can't remember, most likely it was an OTRS request, but I will have to look it up. Looking at the history, it seems the subject is still editing it and promoting himself in other articles. Most of the edits seem to be WP:SPAs, and a pound says they are all B-ham (talk · contribs), who is undoubtedly the subject. Guy (Help!) 08:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hosenbügler

Bill Bailey, "produkt information" ,,Hosenbügler'' - fabulous! Segways with Corby trouser presses mounted on them, a truly surreal idea. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

RFCU

Per your comment on ANI, is that IP edit serious enough to ask for checkuser? I don't want to abuse the process, and would prefer it if someone else actually made that request. THF (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As to the same ANI, I just wanted to mention that it was I, bleeding-heart tax-and-spend Democrat, not THF, who edited the first paragraph of the Tort reform article to include a quote from Ted Frank, beause I thought it was a clear and focused response to a Daniel Fisher quote I had previously added. In the aftermath of the atomic blast which followed about two weeks later I realized Wikidea thought THF had put his name there to promote himself. Anyway, in case you thought the same thing, let me point you to our January discussion: [3] and to the relevant diff [4].
Also, if you like Gilbert and Sullivan, let me recommend my favorite rendition of "With Catlike Tread": [5] Though it's the ranting rather than the music that makes it so enjoyable.
Also, I would love it if people who call other people cunts got kicked out of here for good. Questionic (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Understood. Not much to say, other than that a quiet request to a friendly CU may be an idea. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

- for your help and explanations at WP:Administrators' noticeboard on Spam? (concerning EURELECTRIC) Pas-6 (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You removed references in Peak uranium

It was very nice of you to walk in and not pay attention to the fact that there was a discussion on the talk page.

True, the blacklisted reference to Meneyweek I would have deleted myself as well by now (after considering the commentary I got on my request to whitelink it). But IMHO you were just a little bold by deleting <ref name=Stepek2006> as well. Please be a little more considerate next time. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I removed it because the statement is supported by another reference and the link is broken due to blacklisting. That's all. I missed a second link? Sorry. That can happen on low bandwidth links (like my 3G card). That's probably it in this case. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you read this in the ten minutes it took me to realise that I have made a big mistake. Please consider my previous words null and void. My apologies. Debresser (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  • LOL! No worries, mate, it is very easy to do when wading through diffs and such. No offence was caused, only mild puzzlement looking for where I dropped a clanger. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Calling me “disingenuous”

Well, honestly I feel a bit offended by your comment. There was nothing “disingenuous” at all. Actually, I would have considered blocking them myself, but I did not as I was the one to warn them shortly beforehand. That was the reason for me asking for some uninvolved administrators; I don't think that was “disingenuous” at all, but simply the right course of action. — Aitias // discussion 11:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Feh, check the context, the user has been trolled to hell and back for daring to oppose some candidates. Even if you consider that disruptive, the way to fix it is probably to ignore it and move on. I would counsel you to say, in future, "I have warned" rather than "has been warned" as this avoids any appearance of impropriety. Oh, and it would belong at WQA anyway :-) Guy (Help!) 15:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Abusive admin

Hi Guy. Re this, please see User talk:John#Trying yet again for an exhaustive account, with diffs, of my involvement in the matter, and Talk:Intelligent design#Whither? for my take on where the wider issue needs to go next. User talk:KillerChihuahua#Viridae and John may also be of interest. Best wishes, and let me know if you need any further clarifications. --John (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Abusive Deletion use of Wikipedia as a free web host

Hello, i'm user Drokstef and i just notice that you delete my sandbox page User:Drokstef/Sandbox of under strange motives. I think you gotta be more at careful before delete an article under some wrong-supposed motives. First, i'm not the lead singer of this band, and even if i'd be, you can't delete an article which has a lot of notable and reliable reasons to exist on wikipedia. On the other side, if you pay attention you can see that i have more any other contributions, not only about this band. I wrote that article about this band, because i like their music and i know many reliable and notable stuff about them. So, please take a look again on the article that you delete under wrong-supposed motives and restore the article on my sandbox page. Drokstef (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Sure he can delete your page. You haven't edited it from months, aren't making contributions to the project, the deleted page doesn't meet our article space criteria so its never going to be moved back into the encyclopaedia proper and Wikipedia is not a free web-host. If you would like someone (me?) to email you a copy of the last version of the page to use elsewhere you only have to ask. Spartaz Humbug! 00:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I've been dealing with this user for some time, in an effort to help and to perhaps garner a useful article, and I have to say I completely agree with both the motives and the policy under which you acted to remove the material from User:Drokstef/Sandbox. I'm perhaps a bit soft-hearted, or soft-headed, and have agreed to restore the contents of the sandbox page for 30 days. As you will see from a note on the user's talk page, I think I've been very clear that the 30 days is the last straw, and the article either has to go to WP:Deletion review or back to mainspace within that time. I've made a note on my calendar for March 14 and I certainly intend to follow through on it (If I don't, by all means nuke the page immediately). I hope you will allow this last chance for the user in question to make a useful contribution; if you have any questions or problems, I am at your service. Thanks in advance for any forbearance you can offer here; I hope neither of us will regret it. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The guy is here only for the purposes of promoting his band. He has done absolutely nothing else as far as I can tell. He had the page userfied, did bugger all with it, and WP:NOTMYSPACE, which is what he seems to be trying to us us as. That needs gone. And so does Drokstef unless he starts doing something other than spamming his band. Why we would encourage him to take his band vanity article back to DRV is a mystery to me. A7 for band vanity was one of the least contentious speedy criteria debates I can recall. Especially for people who, like Drokstef, also sockpuppet and repost the deleted content and attack those who try to explain policy to them. His last edit was October 6 last year, and a day after I nuked his vanity page he is asking everywhere for it to be undeleted - if that's not evidence of abusing Wikipedia as a free webhost then I don't know what is. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I gave this a great deal of thought and decided to agree with you, then found you'd deleted the page in question for another very good reason. I entirely agree with your motives, your timing and your knowledge of policy. I suppose I was just unwilling to admit that I had been being gamed, which I find galling, since I'd spent quite some time helping him improve the article. Thanks for being patient with me about this; the user will receive no further assistance from me on this point. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually I undeleted it again straightway, I thought your WP:AGF was at least worth a go and does you great credit, but someone else (Ryulong?) checked it out in the mean time and banninated the guy based on his lengthy history of nothing but vanispamcruftisement. I can't say I think it's a loss, but there is no doubt that you come out of the whole sorry drama looking the hero. Chapeau, sir, point me to the WP:AGF barnstar so I can adorn your user page. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
OMG, well, thanks -- I'm pleased that you think so -- frankly, my own feeling is that I've been something of a nitwit in this matter, and quite foolish -- and held up the normal workings of things far beyond where I should have done, after having been told by two sensible and competent editors that they felt differently. Oh well, perhaps it makes up for the number of times where I've felt that I have not tried to give new users the benefit of the doubt. I do thank you for both your courtesy and your generosity in this matter, and I'll try to be worthy/worthier of the barnstar. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I know you will find this hard to believe but back in my early days as a sysop I was sometimes accused of excessive good faith - someone called it my Mary Poppins side, I seem to recall. This is absolutely not a problem, quite the reverse. Few things become worse for a bit of thought. Long may you remain friendly and open. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

When you get a chance...

Can you please delete, per WP:RTV, these four archive pages and this talk page? Additionally I ask you to delete this page, which is, of course, totally up to you. Thanks for you assistance. Precious Roy (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

  • YOurs are gone, I am retaining mine for now as this user keeps returning despite saying they have not; the many complaints to OTRS assert a link to real-world identity which is almost impossible to find even knowing the RWI which is supposedly affected. I am all for courtesy blanking and WP:DENY but I have had to dig out the same crap so many times now due to frivolous OTRS complaints that I am going to wait until the user is provably and finally gone before I delete it. I congratulate you on putting up with this person's idiocy for so long. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • All the best. Cheers! Precious Roy (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

BLP discussion

I've grown to respect your position on many things. I'd appreciate your looking at this and at the underlying talk page. If you think I'm right, swell. There's no need for you even to chime in, unless you're moved to do so. But it's especially important to me to find out if you think I'm wrong. I sometimes need a reality-check and you have a special talent for unvarnished critique. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Abd asked that someone notify you of this report on ANI regarding some of your recent editing. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Rjecina ANI

Hi, You have archived my ANI report on User:Rjecina and included: This is bad and getting worse, take it to the right place please.
Could you please tell me where the right place is? The other editors that were involved in the incident didn't even have time to add their comments on this matter on the notice board, as the report was only filed today morning.--Bizso (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

L. A. Reid

Hey, man. I noticed that you recently removed a section from this article because the article happens to be on my watchlist. I understand your concern about the notability & reliability of the information on Reid's personal life. However, I'm planning a major overhaul of the article, and until I can carry out that project, I need as much information to remain there as possible, so that the article is easier to edit. I apologize for any offence given. Huntthetroll (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

User:JenMitch

You just deleted my page for CollarFree. I have done a month of research to post this page. I am not a programmer, I am not a wiki expert and I am not a spammer... that wasn't my intention. I asked you to please tell me why the page was deleted- to please help me. I am REALLY wanting to learn here. This is a killer company in San Diego, who like I said before, I do not work for. (And no, I don't hang out with them. I just like helping the local companies.) You have Threadless on here, and other companies who do the same kinds of things- so... ??? I'd really appreciate some guidance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenmitch (talk • contribs) 21:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Carpetsplus color tile

Just being curious, but in what way was this article Blatant advertising? . . Rcawsey (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Article ona company promoting its next convention, no sources, the only link being to the company's website, written by a WP:SPA. Feel free to create a decent article if you like. Guy (Help!) 17:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I may do that. . . Meanwhile, I notice the article's talk page Talk:Carpetsplus color tile still exists: should this be deleted? Rcawsey (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought about it at the time and decided not, as it might be helpful, but actually I think you are right. Incidentally, this is a great example of the problem of leaving poor articles lying around - Grobserver, a WP:SPA wh almost certainly works for the firm, copied a rather poor article on a competitor, including the information about where their summer convention will be (like we care). So it's not too surprising it looked like advertorial :-( Guy (Help!) 21:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably my own fault for getting involved

Hi Guy, I was wonder if I could get a brief background on the players involved with the Martin Fleischmann article and whether it's worth trying to improve the article. I guess that cold fusion is one of those subjects that is "problematic" to say the least based on my brief dealings over the last few days with that bio. Anyways, maybe I should stick to political and religous issues since they are less dramatic :) Cheers, --Tom 14:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Guy, thanks for the reply here and also thank you for your response at the ANI board, that was very generous of you. The Martin Fleischmann article actually looks much better now and more in line with MOSBIO. Way to much drama just to try to make a slight improvement to the lead. I enjoy following the BLP board (I think that is how I ended up there but who knows) and trying to help where I can but sometimes I am sure it just must be me :) Anyways, cheers! Tom 03:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello You deleted this article. He's famous in France because of its song J'aime plus Paris with many winks to Paris s'éveille, the song of his father Jacques. Could you restaure it ? --Pixeltoo (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The Million Dollar Homepage -- some issues

Hi Guy. I've noticed that in the past you have edited The Million Dollar Homepage. I'd appreciate some advice. In particular, I am concerned about the section Similar websites -- or, to be precise, the second paragraph. Much of that content seems very spammy to me, despite the fact that most of the refs are "properly sourced" and "properly formatted" using the <ref> mechanism etc. Just look at the last sentence: "A recent variation on the genre includes Million Dollar Cube" -- the first reference is to the site itself, so it's in no way independent, and the second reference doesn't seem very reliable to me either (of course I can be mistaken, but one good link does not "multiple reliable independent references" make.) Anyway. I don't actually think the entire section is appropriate here; this particular article is about one particular site -- the first of its kind -- and there is no reason to list two or three or more similar sites when there are thousands of them around, all completely non-notable, or course.

Anyway, I've tried to remove this section, [6], but was promptly reverted. If you think something good can be done here, please do it. For my part, I don't think anything good can come out of Wikipedia at all, ever, so I am not going to edit this (or any other) article any further. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  • You are doing the right thing. We have been fighting off the addition of knock-offs for as long as the page has existed, none of the knock-offs is a tenth as notable as the original and virtually every one is added by a WP:SPA. Remove them. Leave well-sourced commentary on the genre and remove the individual ones unless there is a world-class source that identifies them as being of particular note. Thus far, this has not happened, in my experience. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a reply to everyone.
User:Matthewedwards/Top bar Special:Contributions/Matthewedwards. I am neither a Single Purpose Account nor a spammer. That paragraph was sourced by the Wall Street Journal using two separate reliable secondary sources that were formatted correctly. The primary sources were used in accordance with WP:PSTS. I have spent the last month getting the article to GA status, it is now listed at FAC and no one at any point has taken offense to that section. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

And you can source loads of crap from loads of places. Like I said on the talk page, the onus is on you to achieve consensus for inclusion of disputed material. That does not assume bad faith, only a knowledge of a long history of spamming and POV-pushing on that article, dating back fomr before you even registered. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Idle RPG RFD

Now closing an active RFD in that manner was most certainly not an appropriate thing to do. I really hope you'll rethink that one. Tothwolf (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Fascism article

I wonder if you could look at Fascism#Political spectrum. The introductory sentence of this section is not supported by the footnotes, and much of the section is devoted to "left-wing fascism", which is not described elsewhere in the article. There has been discussion, but it has not been resolved. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence uses a phrase for which a precise and specific cite is given, and EACH word in the phrase is then supported by multiple cites. Collect (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Source question on Tucker Max

Hey. Earlier today you removed a source from the Tucker Max article. Another editor has readded it (or rather readded the statement it was being used to source without the source itself), claiming that it meets WP:SPS. Care to weigh in again, or is this a matter for RSN? McJeff (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Self published sources are fine for trivial and uncontroversial material. I was dealing with a separate problem: a years-long campaign of spamming and self-promotion, with sockpuppetry, by Michael Crook. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Your Question

Hey Guy, I appreciate the question. Indeed, you'll note I'm in that category of "those who may wish to become admins"...and I always said I would never self-nom, but wait until a few others seem to think I'm ready. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devdas (1937 film)

I did find this article from Wall Street Journal partner Livemint about the Devdas films, that specifically confirms the 1937 Assamese version: by Sanjukta Sharma (June 7, 2008), "Multiple Takes: Devdas’s journey in Indian cinema -- from the silent era of the 1920s to the opulent Hindi blockbuster of 2002". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Blogging4truth SSP on ANI

Actually, I meant in case you suspected sleeper accounts, not the blatantly obvious socks. Sorry, I didn't feel like responding on ANI. Synergy 20:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Mike Sale

has now turned the duchy into an attack site. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Restoration of WP:Wikistory

Hello. I noticed that you restored WP:Wikistory, as per its Deletion Review. However, in doing so, you apparently didn't restore its Talk Page. Also, WP:Wikistory (sentence) is still deleted, and I believe the DRV covered them both.--Unscented (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The former issue is taken care of now, Guy, and the latter is a matter of judgment and I'm not sure it's what you meant to do. Meantime, I just dropped by to remind you to subst the template {{drv top}} (or its redirect {{drt}}) when closing DRVs. Thanks. Chick Bowen 23:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought I had. Maybe it got conflicted and I didn't notice, I was busy. Stupid budgets - only a couple of million and they want me to jump through hoops, the bastards. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Fred M. Levin

Hi Guy. You may not believe me, but Fred M. Levin is not a self created biography page. What you feel is a peacock statement, I think is statement of fact which also happens to be complementary. Perhaps I should look for criticisms to add balance. Can you take a look at it again? Thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fred_M._Levin_(2nd_nomination) Mwalla (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla

  • No, I completely believe you. It is, however, seriously lacking in evidence of notability. It's not about balance, it's about being the primary focus of reliable independent sources. Or not. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. Perhaps he is not significant enough or perhaps I should include a more balanced perspective. Thanks. Mwalla (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla

Two Q's

Q1. Earlier in the week I listed an ANI report re: some regular anon IP edits to Trinidad and Tobago, Aruba, North American Free Trade Agreement, etc. They were from a dynamic series of Spanish IP addresses. I've found out recently that the level of vandalism ran from more than just the 4 or 5 I listed. Recommendations?

Q2. After seeing this edit/canvas and the strong relation to this WQA report, I smell a canvasback duck (is this a new term for a canvassing sockpuppet?). Any chance for anyone you know to do an unofficial sockcheck? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/Archive_40&oldid=1139601711"